Relationships between local governance and local government and the role of the State: evidence from the LEADER programme in Ireland
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Norois
Environnement, aménagement, société
241 | 2016
Innovation sociale et développement des territoires
dans les campagnes européennes
Relationships between local governance and local
government and the role of the State: evidence
from the LEADER programme in Ireland
Relations entre gouvernance et gouvernement local et le rôle de l’État : le cas
du programme LEADER en Irlande
Mary Cawley
Electronic version
URL: http://journals.openedition.org/norois/5991
DOI: 10.4000/norois.5991
ISBN: 978-2-7535-5504-4
ISSN: 1760-8546
Publisher
Presses universitaires de Rennes
Printed version
Date of publication: 30 December 2016
Number of pages: 33-47
ISBN: 978-2-7535-5483-2
ISSN: 0029-182X
Electronic reference
Mary Cawley, « Relationships between local governance and local government and the role of the
State: evidence from the LEADER programme in Ireland », Norois [Online], 241 | 2016, Online since 31
December 2018, connection on 03 January 2020. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/norois/5991 ;
DOI : 10.4000/norois.5991
© Tous droits réservésNorois n° 241, 2016/4, p. 33-47
www.pur-editions.fr Revue en ligne : http://norois.revues.org
Relationships between Local Governance
and Local Government and the Role of the State:
Evidence from the LEADER Programme in Ireland
Relations entre gouvernance et gouvernement local et le rôle de l’État :
le cas du programme LEADER en Irlande
Mary Cawley
Whitaker Institute, School of Geography and Archaeology, National University of Ireland Galway, University Road,
Galway, Ireland (mary.cawley@nuigalway.ie)
Abstract: Central states allocated responsibility for local development actions to a range of private, community and voluntary orga-
nisations in many European countries, over the past three decades. This phenomenon has been viewed as undermining the roles
and influence of local government. In rural areas, the principle of subsidiarity in the LEADER programme was influential in such
delegation of responsibilities. This paper has the objective of analysing the changing relationships between local government and
local governance associated with LEADER, using Ireland as an example. Ireland assumes particular interest because new gover-
nance structures were accompanied in many cases by new territorial areas which did not coincide with the local government county
units and LEADER was truly innovative. The method consists of a critical analysis of government policy documents, evaluations of
the LEADER programme in Ireland and experience of researching a number of the governance partnerships. The results illustrate
the modalities through which local government may gain influence over local governance structures and extend its remits with the
support of central government.
Résumé : Au cours des trois dernières décennies, les États centraux ont délégué des responsabilités à des organisations privées, com-
munautaires et bénévoles pour le développement d’actions de développement local. Ce phénomène a été perçu comme affaiblissant
l’influence et le rôle ou les fonctions des gouvernements locaux (acteurs publics locaux). Dans les zones rurales, le principe de subsidiarité
du programme LEADER a influencé l’allocation de telles responsabilités. Ce texte a pour but d’analyser l’évolution des relations, entre les
gouvernements locaux et les structures de gouvernance locale, relatives au programme LEADER, en utilisant le cas de l’Irlande comme
illustration. L’Irlande présente un intérêt spécifique car le programme LEADER y a été réellement innovant et les nouvelles structures de
gouvernance se sont accompagnées, dans de nombreux cas, de la création de nouvelles zones territoriales ne coïncidant pas avec les comtés
des gouvernements locaux. La méthode utilisée consiste à établir une analyse critique des documents relatifs à la politique du gouverne-
ment, des évaluations du programme LEADER en Irlande ainsi que des recherches menées sur différents partenariats de gouvernance.
Les résultats présentent les modalités à travers lesquelles les gouvernements locaux peuvent étendre plus amplement leur influence sur les
structures de gouvernance locale et accroître ses autorités avec le soutien de l’administration centrale.
Keywords: local governance – local government – LEADER – Ireland
Mots clés : gouvernance locale – gouvernement local – LEADER – Irlande
Article reçu le 16 janvier 2016 ; définitivement accepté le 31 octobre 2016
33Dossier thématique : Innovation sociale et développement des territoires dans les campagnes européennes
Introduction that may be posed to democratic local government;
(ii) partnership as a mode through which new
“Where government signals a concern for the forms of governance operate; (iii) the role of cen-
formal institutions and structures of the state, tral government in mediating relationships between
the concept of governance is broader and draws local governance and local government; and (iv) the
attention to the ways in which governmental and innovative features of governance associated with
non-governmental organisations work together and LEADER.
to the ways in which political power is distributed, The new modes of governance identified during
both internal and external to the state” (Stoker, the last three decades usually involve a tripartite
quoted in Goodwin [1998, 5-6]). structure of private, community/voluntary, local and
This paper discusses the EU LEADER (Liaison central government institutions and agencies wor-
Entre Activités de Développement de l’Economie king together to meet societal needs (Jessop, 1995).
Rurale) programme as introducing an innovative They occur in both urban and rural areas and area-
form of local governance with particular reference based local actions are central features (Geddes
to its relationships with local government 1, using the and Beddington, 2001). Such initiatives are often
example of Ireland since 1991. The Irish experience initiated by or supported by central government and
is not entirely unique but the population size and arise from at least two broad sets of factors asso-
areal extent of local government areas meant that ciated with the changing political economy. First,
new governance structures and territories emerged they were established initially as methods of mee-
in response to the LEADER programme to a greater ting societal needs which states were no longer able
extent than in some other countries. The evolution to serve adequately, because of reduced budgets,
of these structures over time has involved interven- during a period of renewed economic recession in
tions by central government and new relationships the 1980s (Healey, 2003; Geddes, 2006). Second,
between the local state and the governance enti- as a parallel development, increased attention was
ties. The role of central government in this context being given by neo-liberal states to the devolution
has received limited attention in the international of influence to local populations over actions that
literature to date and merits attention. The aims of affect their welfare, to provide greater individua-
the paper are: first, to discuss the role of LEADER lised responsibility (Harvey, 2005; Swyngedouw,
in introducing a new form of local governance in 2005). Some commentators view national govern-
Ireland with reference to the establishment of new ments as losing power, particularly to regional bodies
structures and territories for the delivery of the pro- through devolution (e.g., Keating, 1998), but they
gramme; and, second, to examine the evolution of often continued to exercise considerable influence
relationships between local governance and local over the actions of the local governance entities
government and the mediating influence of central (Swyngedouw et al., 2002).
government. In order to address these aims, a cri- The transition from government to governance
tical evaluation methodology was followed which by neoliberal governments since the 1980s has
involved a review of an extensive range of official been theorised with reference to Foucauldian
policy documents and evaluations of the LEADER “neo governmentality” (Brenner et al., 2003).
programme in Ireland since 1991, complemented Governmentality relates to the ways in which the
by experience from researching some of the partner- state renders the population governable and, in its
ships. new form, the distinction between government and
In order to contextualise the research, key the- population becomes blurred (Woods and Goodwin,
mes relating to tripartite governance are introduced 2003). Rose (1996) has referred to a shift from a
first, namely: (i) the reasons for the creation of new regime of managed liberalism in the Keynesian
governance structures, their roles and the challenges welfare state, in which the social sphere (in terms
1. In Ireland, local government refers to the system of administration in
of health, education etc.) was viewed as a legitimate
the county or city area. The elected body and its administrative staff are object of governance, managed through state plan-
usually referred to as the local authority. However, the terms local govern-
ment and local authority are sometimes used interchangeably (Callanan,
ning at a central level, to one where governing takes
2003, 3). place through communities. In the latter context,
34Mary Cawley – Norois n° 241 (2016/4) p. 33-47
Woods and Goodwin (2003, 254) state that “indi- In some countries the partnerships were based
viduals are represented as members of heteroge- on existing local government structures and ter-
neous communities of allegiance, through which ritories. In other cases, new structures were esta-
governance can be organised”. These authors also blished which were not necessarily answerable to
point out that Rose (1996) was referring to any com- local government and were perceived as creating
munity of interest, not just territorial communities. a challenge to its legitimacy (Swyngedouw, 2005).
The devolution of power to new structures at local Swyngedouw (2005) points out, however, that the
levels brought benefits for both the state and local national and the local states and their forms of poli-
actors, although some commentators have critiqued tical organisation and articulation remained impor-
the trend as eroding the traditional roles of local tant. For example, the central state was usually
government in delivering local services (Healey, instrumental in the formation of the new partner-
2003). In particular the new governance entities ship arrangements (Swyngedouw et al., 2002) and
were viewed as lacking the democratic legitimacy has been the originator of local government reform
associated with elected local representatives (Dean, in many European countries during the past two
2010). Swyngedouw (2005, 1992) has referred to decades (Dollery and Robotti, 2008; Pemberton
such “contradictory tendencies” present in new and Goodwin, 2010). These reforms have impli-
forms of participative governance, versus represen- cations for relationships with the new governance
tative government, as contributing to a “democratic partnerships and it is pertinent to consider the links
deficit”. There was therefore an inherent possibility between the two. Local government reform was
for tension between the new forms of governance and continues to be driven by several factors, of
and local government. The devolution of influence which two are of particular pertinence here: promo-
to new governance structures was also accompanied ting democracy and gaining budgetary efficiencies
by new “technologies” of governing which relate to (Kersting and Vetter, 2003). On one hand, efforts
associated rules, regulations, methods of oversight are taken to increase the involvement of local popu-
and evaluation, and benchmarking of performance lations in the local democratic process; for example,
(Dean, 2010). They differ from the formally codified by creating new fora for representing their interests.
rules and procedures of democratic governing and, On the other hand, budgetary constraints require
as such, may be viewed as further evidence of a les- that greater efficiencies are gained in the expen-
ser form of democratic accountability (Hajer, 2003). diture of public funds through, for example, clo-
“Partnership” was the main modality through ser alignment between local governance and local
which the new tripartite forms of governance ope- government. Local government reform has taken
rated. Partnership is defined by the OECD (1990, place within three broad sets of approaches which
18) as involving “systems of formalised co-opera- occur separately and together in various countries
tion, grounded in legally binding arrangements or (Callanan, 2005). These are liberalism, manageria-
in formal undertakings, co-operative working rela- lism and communitarianism. Both managerial and
tionships and mutually adopted plans among a num- communitarian approaches are apparent in recent
ber of institutions”. In the late 1980s, partnership local government reform in Ireland (Callanan, 2005;
became part of the then European Community’s Forde, 2005). Communitarianism was associated in
(EC) adoption of “subsidiarity” as a method of pro- particular with the establishment of a number of
moting involvement in policy-making at the level at Strategic Policy Committees (SPCs) in each county,
which actions are implemented (Turock, 2001). An in 2000, in order to promote greater engagement by
objective was to “empower” local people through local sectoral interests (e.g., the community, envi-
closer engagement in developments that affected ronmental, business, trade union, farming, sectors)
their social and economic welfare (Benington and with elected representatives in longer-term policy
Geddes, 2001; Le Galès, 2002). The formal arran- and planning at a county level (Callanan, 2005). The
gements associated with the establishment of par- roles of the SPCs were strengthened under reforms
tnerships and the agreed methods of operating form of local government in 2012-2014 (Quinn, 2015).
part of the new technologies of governing. The LEADER approach emphasises a role for local
partnerships in designing and implementing rural
35Dossier thématique : Innovation sociale et développement des territoires dans les campagnes européennes
development strategies as expressed in the concept libraries. Their remit relating to local enterprise
of “subsidiarity”, i.e. that actions should be planned development consisted in providing modest funding
as close as possible to the level at which they will be and other supports to enterprises that employed
implemented (CEC, 2006). The seven key features less than ten people, through a County Enterprise
of LEADER are that: it is area-based; is pursued in Board (CEB), but they had a wider role in helping
a “bottom-up” way; actions are implemented by local to attract investment to the county by providing
public-private-voluntary partnerships known as local the required infrastructure. Their principal sources
action groups (LAGs); an integrated multi-sectoral of income came from rates levied on commercial
approach is followed; actions are innovative with properties, a registration tax on road vehicles and
true potential for creating additional employment supplementary funding from central government;
and introducing new economic and social processes one of their main sources of income, private resi-
and products; co-operation and shared learning take dential property tax, was removed in 1978 (Forde,
place; and networking takes place between par- 2005) (and was reintroduced only in 2013). The
tnerships in order to share good practice. LEADER LEADER programme promised to compensate for
involves partnerships being responsible for devising some of the deficiencies in rural service provision.
and implementing strategies that are jointly funded However, many of the Irish counties were larger in
in substantial ways, by the EU and national govern- area than was considered optimum for integrated
ments, with local inputs of finance and/or labour. area-based actions and had populations that excee-
The remainder of the paper is structured as fol- ded the 100,000 upper threshold limit envisaged for
lows: first, the role of LEADER in introducing new the delivery of LEADER. New governance and new
forms of local governance in Ireland is discussed; territorial structures were, therefore, established in
second, the results are presented with reference to many rural areas in response to the call for proposals
(i) the relationships between local governance and for LEADER 1, in order to meet the requirements
local government in LEADER and (ii) recent local for subsidiarity (Cawley, 2009) (Table 1).
government reform and its implications for local The NUTS 2 Regional Assemblies’ roles related
governance. Conclusions are then drawn. primarily to EU funding and programmes in two
broad regions. Regional government (NUTS 3), a
third administrative tier that is present in many other
Context: LEADER and innovative
European countries was also weak in Ireland in the
governance in Ireland
early 1990s and lacked executive power. Closer ali-
Traditionally, Irish rural policy was sectoral and gnment of rural and regional policy was proposed in
was designed at a national NUTS 1 (Nomenclature a number of government documents (Government
of Territorial Units for Statistics/Nomenclature of Ireland, 1999 and 2002), but limited progress has
des Unités Territoriales Statistiques) level prima- taken place in integrating rural and regional policy
rily by the state departments for agriculture, envi- effectively. The evolution of governance and terri-
ronment, forestry, fisheries, industry and tourism, torial structures associated with the LEADER pro-
among which little collaboration occurred. Delivery gramme in Ireland therefore took place mainly in
took place through regional agencies and their association with central and local government.
local personnel. Local Government county and city The LEADER partnerships in Ireland consisted
councils 2 (NUTS 4) in the twenty-six counties of of three main stakeholder groups: the state/local
the state (Table1 and Figure 1), had limited res- government sector (public sector agencies, local
ponsibilities relating to rural development as such government), the private sector (farms, banks, local
and limited budgets. Their main functions in the businesses etc.) and the voluntary/community sec-
early 1990s related to control of physical planning tor (a wide range of local organisations). Ireland is
and the supply of public services such as housing, considered to have been particularly successful in the
roads, public water provision, sewerage facilities, formation of such tripartite partnerships (McDonagh,
recreational amenities, technical education and 2001; Moseley, 2003). There was a long tradition of
voluntary associations, formed to compensate for
2. See footnote 1. deficits in rural public services, which were able to
36Mary Cawley – Norois n° 241 (2016/4) p. 33-47
Structures (number) and territories Functions
Structures (nombre) et territoires Fonctions
NUTS 1 STATE/L’État Policy making for areas of legal responsibility in the state
Central government departments (16 in September 2016) Elaboration des politiques qui concernent leurs responsabilités
Les départements de l’administration centrale juridiques au niveau de l’État
NUTS 2 REGIONS/REGIONS NUTS 2 Source European funding for Regional Programmes, promote
Regional Assemblies (3 since 2015) coordinated public services, monitor proposals which may
Les assemblées régionales impact on the regions, and advise public bodies of the regional
implications of their policies and plans
Procurer les fonds pour les programmes régionaux, favoriser
la coordination des services publics, examiner les propositions
qui peuvent influencer leurs territoires, et conseiller les agences
publiques à propos des implications régionales de leurs politiques
et plans
NUTS 3 SUB-REGIONS/SUB-REGIONS A consultative role for local area input to the Regional Assemblies
Strategic Planning Authorities (8 in 2015) Supporter le processus de consultation entre les zones locales et les
Les autorités pour la planification stratégique Assemblées Régionales
NUTS 4 COUNTIES/COMTES Policy making for their geographical areas of responsibility across
County councils (26) a range of functions defined in law
Les conseils des comtés L’élaboration des politiques pour leurs juridictions et leurs
compétences
City councils (3, Cork, Dublin, Galway)
Les conseils municipaux
County and city councils (2, Limerick, Waterford since 2014)
Les conseils des comtés et municipaux
Municipal districts in counties other than the three county areas The elected members, at the level of the municipal district, have
in Dublin and the three city council areas (95 since 2014) specific functions for the district defined in law. Other matter of
Districts municipaux dans les comtés, sauf Dublin et les trois zones wider strategic application are generally decided at county level
des conseils des comtés by the elected members from all municipal districts meeting in
plenary formation
Les membres élus, au niveau du district municipal, ont des
fonctions spécifiques qui sont déterminées juridiquement pour le
district. Les matières qui concernent plusieurs districts sont décidées
en séance plénière au niveau du comté par les membres élus issus
de tous les districts municipaux
Local Community Development Committees (LCDCs) (31 since A legal function relating to a six-year Local Economic and
2014) Community Plan. Legal functions to improve the coordination
Les Comités Communautaires de Développement Local (CCDL) of public-funded local and community development programmes
and reduce duplication
Une fonction légale concernant le plan local économique et
communautaire. D’autres fonctions légales en vue d’améliorer
la coordination des programmes locaux et communautaires qui
reçoivent des financements publics et réduire le double financement
des efforts
Local Integrated Development Companies/other entities (38, Implementation of LEADER element of EU Rural Development
2007-2013) Programme and community (social) programmes
Les compagnies locales pour le développement intégré/autres entités Mise en œuvre du programme LEADER dans le Programme de
Local Development Companies (28 in 2014-2020) Développement Rural de l’UE et des programmes communautaires
Les Associations de Développement Local
Table 1: Irish government and governance structures, territories and functions, September 2016
Structures gouvernementales et gouvernance irlandaise : territoires et fonctions, septembre 2016
respond relatively quickly to the first call for proposals LEADER partnerships but tension later arose, in
for funding (Varley and Curtin, 2006; O’Keeffe 2009 some instances, because the capacity of the latter to
and 2014). In many areas, a co-operative approach operate outside the remit of local government was
was adopted initially by the local authorities and the perceived as a threat (Callanan, 2003). Elected mem-
37Dossier thématique : Innovation sociale et développement des territoires dans les campagnes européennes
Figure 1: Counties, cities and LEADER 1 areas, Ireland (sources: Ordnance Survey of Ireland, reproduced under licence; Department of
Agriculture information relating to LEADER 1 areas; the cities of Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Galway and Waterford are identified; prepared
by S. Comer, NUI Galway)
Comtés, villes et Zones LEADER 1 en Irlande (sources : Institut géographique national d’Irlande, reproduit sous licence ; rensei-
gnements concernant les territoires LEADER 1, fournis par le département de l’agriculture ; les cités de Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Galway et
Waterford sont identifiées ; réalisation S. Comer, NUI Galway)
38Mary Cawley – Norois n° 241 (2016/4) p. 33-47
bers (councillors) had no automatic right to be repre- The implementation of the LEADER programme
sented on the LEADER boards until 2001 and were was accompanied by technologies of governing rela-
not necessarily present (CAG, 1999). Research by ting to the applications for funding, monitoring of
Moseley et al. (2001) found that where local autho- expenditure and evaluation of results. LAGs submit-
rities were involved, they were usually an ordinary ted proposals for funding to the government depart-
partner, represented by an official on a similar basis ment with responsibility for the programme (the
to other partners. The territories adopted to imple- Department of Agriculture initially) (Moseley et al.,
ment LEADER were based on the formation of the 2001). Funding was allocated to the partnerships
partnerships and there was considerable variation in selected which appointed support staff and advertised
the areas involved (Figure 1). They included counties a call for applications for funding of local projects from
(e.g., Wexford, no. 15, and Clare, no. 8), where repre- individuals and groups, under headings that had been
sentation across the county was ensured through sub- agreed with the EC. These applications were assessed
structures or provision for liaison (NESC, 1994). against agreed criteria and decisions were made with
Some large counties contained several LEADER regard to those to be funded and the amounts of fun-
areas (for example, County Mayo, nos. 5, 6, 7) and ding to be granted 3. Reporting took place to a special
some partnership areas crossed the boundaries or two monitoring unit in the Department of Agriculture and,
or more counties (for example no. 3, which included during LEADER 1, allocation of even relatively low
parts of counties Leitrim, Roscommon and Sligo). funds to individual applicants had to be approved by
The partnership that represented the Gaeltacht the Department. Accounts were audited by the Office
(areas defined by statute, where Irish or Gaelic is the of the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG, 1999).
first language of a majority of the population) was External ex-ante, interim and ex-post evaluations were
distributed between areas mainly along the north conducted by professional evaluators. The formation
western, western and south western coasts where and operation of the partnerships were also subject to
the Gaeltacht is located (no. 2). Reflecting the inno- defined rules, the implementation of which became
vative nature of the LEADER approach, many of the stricter over time. The partnerships enjoyed conside-
geographical territories arose from common interests rable independence from the local authorities. In fact,
instead of being based on the county unit. it could be said that the LEADER partnerships com-
The formation of new LEADER governance and pensated for the absence of governmental structures
territorial structures arose as part of the national below the level of the county, in Ireland. Gradually,
state’s compliance with EU requirements for sub- however, measures were introduced to bring them wit-
sidiarity, associated with the transfer of funds for hin the oversight of the local authorities, beginning in
rural development. The Irish government also, inde- the late 1990s during which time local government
pendently, adopted partnership governance in its reform was also taking place.
relationships with employers, trades unions and civil
society in order to control wage increases and com- Results
bat unemployment in the late 1980s (O’Donnell,
2008). Local social area-based partnerships were Relationships between local governance
also formed in urban and rural areas to promote and local government in LEADER
social inclusion and offset unemployment (these (1991-2014)
are referred to as social partnerships in the discus-
Ireland has taken part in all five phases of the
sion to distinguish them from the LEADER groups).
LEADER programme to date. The amounts of fun-
Although differing in social and economic emphasis,
ding granted and the numbers of LAGs involved
potential for duplication of applications for funding
changed over time, as did the relationships with
arose because of the large number of different par-
local government (Table 2).
tnerships (c. 100) that existed in Ireland by the late
1990s (Walsh, 2003). These economic concerns 3. This paper does not deal with the practical outcomes of the investment
gave rise to questions surrounding efficiency and that took place through the Leader programme in terms of business for-
mation, job creation, training in skills and local area enhancement, which
effectiveness, arising from independent evaluations are documented elsewhere (e.g. Storey, 1999; Moseley et al., 2001; Dax
of the LEADER programme. et al., 2013).
39Dossier thématique : Innovation sociale et développement des territoires dans les campagnes européennes
Programming period Number of LAGs to implement Relations with local government
Période de programmation LEADER partnerships (total fun- Relations avec les gouvernements locaux
ding)
Nombre de GAL à fin de mise en
oeuvre le programme LEADER (fi-
nancement total)
1991-1994 16 (44.8 € millions) Representation of local government by ordinary members on cer-
tain LEADER committees
Représentation du gouvernement local par des membres ordinaires
dans certains comités LEADER
1995-1999 32 (95.58 € millions) Creation of County Development Boards (CDBs), in 1999, to
which the LEADER partnerships were required to report
Création des Conseils de développement des comtés (CDB) en
1999, auxquels les partenariats LEADER doivent rendre leurs rap-
ports
2000-2006 22 jointly financed by the EU-Ire- Henceforth the annual plans of the LEADER partnerships must
land and 16 financed by the Irish be approved by the CDBs
government (98.23€ millions) Les CDB ont alors dû donner leur approbation quant aux plans
22 financés conjointement par l’UE- annuels des partenariats LEADER
Irlande et 16 financés par le gouver- from 2001, each county council had the right to be represented,
nement irlandais (98,23 millions by elected members, on the LEADER partnerships in the county
d’€) Après 2001, chaque conseil de comté avait le droit d’être représenté,
par des élus, dans le comité des partenariats LEADER dans le comté
2007-2013 38 (425€ millions) Integrated Local Development Companies (ILDCs) were crea-
ted by merging the LEADER and the social partnerships in most
counties
Fusion des partenariats LEADER et sociaux comme Entreprises
pour le développement local intégré, selon les différents comtés
2014-2020 28 (250€ millions) The Local Government Reform Act of 1st June 2014 established
new structures which incorporate the LEADER and the social
partnerships within the remit of a new county Local Community
Development Committee (LCDC)
La Loi relative à la Réforme du gouvernement local du 1er juin 2014
établit un Comité pour le développement de la communauté locale
au sein de chaque comté pour coordonner, planifier et contrôler
le développement local et celui de la communauté, y compris les
actions des partenariats LEADER et sociaux
Table 2: The evolution of the LEADER programme in Ireland, 1991-2014, and relations established with local government
Évolution (1991-2014) du programme LEADER en Irlande et relations avec les gouvernements locaux
Sixteen LAGs were funded under LEADER 1, both LEADER and the social partnerships and/or
1991-1994, covering approximately 60% of the the CEB (Kearney and Associates, 1997). However,
land area of the Irish state (Kearney and Associates, where funding was obtained from more than one
1997). Thirty six LAGs were recognised and fun- source, the total amount did not exceed that per-
ded under LEADER 2, 1995-1999, and covered mitted under the LEADER regulations. In order to
all counties in the state, excluding cities, reflecting avoid duplication of funding, the government trans-
the success of local groups in preparing proposals ferred responsibility for economic initiatives from
approved for funding (Storey, 1999). As in LEADER the social partnerships to the LEADER partnerships
1, some territories coincided with the county areas, in 1994 (Cawley, 2007).
some counties contained more than one partnership As LEADER 2 came towards an end, concerns
and some cross-county partnerships existed. An were expressed about a democratic deficit among
evaluation of LEADER 1, suggested that there was the membership of the management boards of
a possibility of projects applying for funding from LEADER and the social partnerships (Walsh,
40Mary Cawley – Norois n° 241 (2016/4) p. 33-47
2003) – an issue identified by Sywngedouw (2005) (ILDCs), incorporating the LEADER and the social
as potentially problematic in the case of new gover- partnerships, would be established on a county basis
nance partnerships. Most of the members repre- in rural areas across the state (DCRGA, 2007). This
sented sectional interests and were not elected by proposal evoked a negative response from some of
universal franchise among the population in general, the various groups involved, which did not consi-
as are county councillors (councillors were not per- der that satisfactory consultation had taken place.
mitted to become members of the social partner- Following further discussion, the Minister agreed
ships until 2001). In response to these concerns, that 37 ILDCs would be established. By July 2009
the government required the LAGs to liaise with (two years after the RDP was scheduled to com-
a County Development Board (CDB), established mence), 25 ILDCs were in place, based on partner-
in each county in 1999, as part of a local govern- ships which already collaborated in delivering social
ment communitarian reform initiative to enhance and economic programmes, and 12 additional com-
representation (Government of Ireland, 1998). This panies were formed through mergers (Table 3 traces
measure also served to keep the local authorities the experience in one county).
more aware of the activities being pursued by the In practice, more than one entity implemented
partnerships. Evidence of competition between the RDP in the larger counties of Cork, Donegal,
some CEBs and the LEADER partnerships for high Galway, Kerry, Limerick and Mayo (Figure 2). The
quality projects, during LEADER 2, also suggested offshore islands formed a 38th partnership.
that greater collaboration was necessary. The ILDCs strengthened the links to the local
The LEADER + programme ran between 2000 authorities and the county territories. The boards
and 2006. Twenty two LAGs with well-developed of the new development companies were to include
proposals were funded jointly by the EU and the four elected councillors and a nominee of the
national government and 16 with less strong pro- County Manager and were required to have their
posals were funded by the Irish government solely, annual plans endorsed by the CDB in each county.
made possible by the increased availability of fun- This latter requirement and a requirement for fur-
ding as the economy grew strongly (Fitzpatrick ther budgetary reporting to the DCRGA involved
Associates, 2005) (Table 2). In 2002, responsi- additional administration for both the local authori-
bility for rural development was moved from the ties and the partnerships, especially where a county
Department of Agriculture to a new Department of boundary was crossed. There were, however, many
Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs (DCRGA), examples of LAGs and local authorities working pro-
reflecting the special attention being given to the ductively together in village enhancement projects,
rural community sector. for example. In response to new EU strategic gui-
Almost immediately, the responsible minister delines for rural development for 2007-2013 (CEC,
commissioned a review of expenditure by the LAGs 2006), relating to greater inclusion of marginalised
in order to secure the most positive impacts for groups, the ILDC boards increased their member-
local communities from the EU Rural Development ship from the community and voluntary sectors and
Programme (RDP) 2006-2013, in which LEADER from minority groups (e.g., youth, women, immi-
actions were to be incorporated with agricul- grants). Notwithstanding efforts to promote further
ture. Concerns were expressed in the expenditure democratic representation and efficiencies through
review about duplication of actions and investment the merging of partnerships and closer relationships
between the social partnerships and the LEADER with local government, an evaluation conducted for
LAGs, notwithstanding the measures that had been the EC identified several weaknesses in the imple-
taken to avoid such duplication in 1994. Further mentation of the RDP 2007-2013 in Ireland (Dax
integration of the LEADER and the social partner- et al., 2013). These included delays in beginning
ships was envisaged as a method of gaining econo- the work of the programme, as a result of the delays
mic efficiencies as part of a process of “cohesion”. In with mergers, and additional time required for
August 2007, the Minister announced (prematurely, budgetary reporting to the DCRGA. It was found
as it transpired) that he had obtained agreement that that agriculture-related projects took precedence
25 new Integrated Local Development Companies over other projects, arising from LEADER being
41Dossier thématique : Innovation sociale et développement des territoires dans les campagnes européennes
Leader 1 1991-1994
Arigna Catchment Area Community Company (ACACC) had 25 Directors represented the community, local government,
responsibility for County Leitrim, north County Roscommon public sector agencies, regional tourism organisations
and a part of County Sligo (Fig. 1, area 3) 25 administrateurs représentaient la communauté, le gouverne-
La Compagnie Communautaire pour la Région d’Arigna gérait le ment local, les agences publiques et les organismes régionaux du
comté de Leitrim, le nord du comté de Roscommon et une partie tourisme
du comté de Sligo
Leader 2 1995-2000
As in Leader I County Leitrim Partnership (CLP) established in 1996 in res-
Comme pour Leader I ponse to the EU-funded Operational Programme for Local
Urban and Rural Development to deliver a Local Development
Social Inclusion Programme (LDSIC)
L’Association du Comté de Leitrim (CLP) fut créée en 1996 en ré-
ponse au Programme Opérationnel pour le Développement Local
Urbain et Rural qui était financé par l’EU pour la mise en œuvre
du Programme Local de Cohésion Sociale
16 directors represented the community, public sector agencies
and the social partners
16 administrateurs représentaient la communauté, les agences
publiques et les partenaires sociaux
Leader + 2001-2006
As in Leader I and II CLP delivered EU and Irish social employment and other social
Comme pour Leader I et II programmes in County Leitrim
Le CLP met en œuvre les programmes pour l’emploi et autres pro-
grammes sociaux, européens et irlandais, dans le comté de Leitrim
Rural Development Programme/Le programme de développement rural 2007-2013
Leitrim Integrated Development Company established, Decem- 23 directors represented community, local government, public
ber 2007, through merger of ACACC and CLP, to deliver Lea- sector agencies and the social partners
der and social programmes in County Leitrim 23 administrateurs représentent la communauté, le gouvernement
La Compagnie pour le Développement Intégré de Leitrim fut créée local, les agences publiques et les partenaires sociaux
en décembre 2007, suite à la fusion de l’ACACC et du CLP, afin
de mettre en œuvre le programme Leader et des programmes so-
ciaux dans le comté de Leitrim
Rural Development Programme/Le programme de développement rural 2014-2020
Leitrim Development Company is the implementing partner for 17 directors representing the community, local government,
Leader – on behalf of the local action group public sector, social partners and the private sector (9 director
L’Association de Développement de Leitrim est le partenaire res-
from the non-statutory sector)
ponsable du programme Leader, pour le compte du groupe d’action
17 administrateurs représentent la communauté, le gouvernement
locale local, les agences publique, les partenaires sociaux et le secteur
Leitrim Local Community Development Committee (a commit- privé (9 administrateurs représent le sector non-statutaire)
tee of Leitrim local government)
Le Comité pour le Développement Communautaire Locale de Lei-
trim (un comité du gouvernement local de Leitrim)
Table 3: County Leitrim: an example of changing governance structures, responsibilities and territories between 1991 and 2014 (sources:
CLP, 1996, 28; ACACC 1997; Pobal, 2007, 145; Interview with Manager of Arigna LEADER 1998; Leitrim Integrated Development Com-
pany [2007]; Leitrim Business.ie [2016])
Le comté de Leitrim, exemple des changements dans les structures de gouvernance, les compétences et les territoires entre 1991 et
2014 – entretien avec l’administrateur d’Arigna, LEADER, 1998
42Mary Cawley – Norois n° 241 (2016/4) p. 33-47
Figure 2: Rural Development Programme (RDP) 2006-2013, Counties and other operational areas, Ireland (sources: Ordnance Sur-
vey of Ireland, reproduced under licence; [http://enrd.ec.europa.eu/enrd-static/leader/local-action-groups/en/local-action-groups_
en.html?country=Ireland] and GAMMA, Dublin, for RDP areas 2006-2013; prepared by S. Comer, NUI Galway)
Le Programme de Développement Rural (PDR) 2006-2013, Comtés et autres zones opérationnelles en Irlande (sources : Institut géo-
graphique national d’Irlande, reproduit sous licence ; renseignements concernant les territoires PDR 2006-2013, enrd.ec.europa.eu et GAMMA,
Dublin ; réalisation S. Comer, NUI Galway)
43Dossier thématique : Innovation sociale et développement des territoires dans les campagnes européennes
integrated with agricultural policy. There was also hereafter for simplicity sake as the Steering Group),
little evidence of the “new rural paradigm” based published in March 2012, identified limitations asso-
on local territory, as recommended by an OECD ciated with the model for integrating the social and
(2006) report. LEADER partnerships introduced in 2007 (DECLG,
2012a). These were said to include: their conside-
rable administrative burden; the potential for dupli-
Recent local government reform
cation and overlap between activities because of the
and the implications for local governance
many organisations involved; the multiple arrange-
The review of the evolving relationship between ments for funding and reporting; and the demands
local governance and local government illustrates and hidden costs associated with the requirement
that change at a local scale was influenced by deci- to participate in multiple boards and structures at
sions made by responsible government ministers local level. It was further pointed out that, in gene-
centrally, in response to both national priorities ral, local government authorities have limited input
and changing EU policy 4 (e.g., decisions relating into strategy or decision-making with respect to local
to cohesion and broader representation). The focus development programmes and that their involvement
here is on the quest for greater democratic repre- should be increased. The methods of gaining efficien-
sentation and efficiencies in public expenditure cies included a sharing of office facilities and services
which were pursued as part of local government between local authorities and LAGs, and oversight of
reform. Over time, the elected local representatives local and community development programmes by a
became increasingly suspicious of the influence special committee at a county level, i.e. to integrate
of the LEADER partnerships and the erosion of the activities of the LAGs and social partnerships
their clientelist role and appealed to the argument with those of the local authorities (DECLG, 2012a).
of a ‘democratic deficit’ in seeking to increase their It was recommended that an Inter-Departmental
own influence over LEADER (Callanan, 2003; Group be established at a national level to enhance
Swyngedouw, 2005). They were also losing influence data capture across various programmes and gain effi-
to central government, through a reduced role in ciencies in expenditure by avoiding the possibility of
the delivery of a range of public services, inclu- duplication. Thus, the LAGs were to be brought wit-
ding health services and public water supply (from hin closer control of local government through “terri-
2015 on) and their budgets remained constrained torial alignment” and of national government through
(O’Keeffe, 2009). Since the early 1990s, central a “whole government approach” (ibid., 13).
government had sought methods of reducing the The Steering Group proposals were incor-
cost and increasing the efficiency of local govern- porated into an Action Plan for More Effective
ment service delivery. Bringing local governance Local Government (DECLG, 2012b). The Local
within the remit of local government was one of the Government Reform Act of 1 June 2014 (Government
ways of attaining these aims and, at the same time, of Ireland, 2014) gave legal effect to the increased
compensating for some of the responsibilities that influence being allocated to local government in
had been removed from the latter. economic and social development, through the
Following the election of a new government in establishment of a Local Community Development
2011, responsibility for LEADER was allocated to the Committee (LCDC) in each county to replace the
new Department of the Environment, Community former CDB. The membership represents a wide
and Local Government (DECLG), highlighting the range of public, community and civic society interests
growing links between governance and local govern- in a communitarian approach. There are elements of
ment. A review of the RDP 2007-2013 programme managerialism involved, however. The LCDC has a
by a government-appointed Local Government/Local statutory (legal) function relating to the preparation
Development Alignment Steering Group (referred to of a six-year Local Economic and Community Plan,
its implementation, review, monitoring and revision
4. It is recognised that the evolution of local governance in LEADER took if necessary (DECLG, 2014). It has statutory func-
place within the context of policy change at an EU level. The details of
the relationships between national government policy and EU policy are
tions also to improve the coordination of public-fun-
beyond the scope of this paper. ded local and community development programmes
44Mary Cawley – Norois n° 241 (2016/4) p. 33-47
and reduce duplication (ibid.). An almost immediate highly centralised system of government and limited
public protest followed from members of the LAGs financial resources that could be deployed for rural
and the social partnerships to the establishment of development at a local government level. In order to
the LCDCs and the wide-ranging powers allocated meet the LEADER requirement for subsidiarity, new
to them with respect to local development (Holland, LAG governance structures and new territorial units
2014; ILDN News, 2014a). became responsible for its implementation. In several
Particular concerns expressed by the LAG instances they diverged from the existing county struc-
boards concerning the delivery of the RDP 2014- tures and, in general, had considerable independence
2020 relate to the reduction of 41% in the overall from the local government authorities, although often
LEADER budget, as compared with 2007-2013, and working with them on particular projects. Social par-
the lower government support for LEADER than for tnerships were also established in Ireland to promote
agriculture (ILDN News, 2014a). The allocation of inclusion and offset unemployment. By the late
responsibility for LEADER to the local authorities 1990s, there was a proliferation of governance enti-
will lead, it was felt, to the loss of experienced staff ties operating within various geographical areas with
and of the voluntary contributions of members of the limited links with local government. Evaluations that
management boards (ILDN News, 2014b). Further, were conducted as part of the technologies of gover-
local authorities may not be permitted to access phi- ning identified a democratic deficit in representation
lanthropic funds, to supplement funding from the and some duplication of funding and effort. Remedial
EU and the national government, as the LAGs have measured were introduced by central government to
been able to do in the past (ILDN News, 2014c). promote greater integration which were imbricated
In September 2016 it was announced that “Ireland’s with measures for local government reform. Increased
LEADER programme will encompass 28 sub-regio- representation of local interests in new local govern-
nal areas” (DAFM, 2016, 34-35). ment structures was provided in a spirit of communi-
tarianism (Callanan, 2005) but there were also strong
Conclusions elements of managerialism in the actions taken by the
Irish government (Forde, 2005). Managerialism has
Responsibility for local development and service become more pronounced in the reforms introduced
delivery has been given to new public-private-voluntary in 2014 which appear to undermine the subsidiarity
partnerships, in both urban and rural areas in many associated with LEADER.
countries since the 1980s, in a form of neo-govern- The evidence illustrates that the new forms of
mentality (Brenner et al., 2003). The benefits have governance associated with the LEADER approach
involved the devolution of greater influence to local may successfully promote public participation,
communities over actions that affect their wellbeing beyond the traditional remit of local government,
and the creation of a sense of ownership and empower- as well as promoting economic development.
ment (OECD, 2006). Negative features have been However, the democratic representative role of
associated with undermining the role of local govern- local government confers particular capacities
ment (Swyngedouw, 2005). There is a tension between to respond to any perceived undermining of its
new forms of participative democracy and representa- influence. In the Irish case, after an initial liberal
tive democracy and the latter may seek to recover its approach to the formation of governance struc-
perceived loss of influence. Local government reform, tures, in order to deliver a range of local services
designed to increase democratic engagement and gain with EU funding support and limited involvement
financial efficiencies, has also been in progress during of local government, central government suppor-
the same period of time, often initiated by central ted closer alignment with the latter. This support
governments, with implications for the relationships has been promoted as part of the communitarian
between new forms of governance and local govern- pursuit of greater democratic representation com-
ment. This paper addressed these relationships in the bined with managerial intervention, designed to
context of Ireland. gain efficiencies in public expenditure through co-
The EU LEADER programme was considered ordination and oversight within the context of the
as being particularly innovative in Ireland, given a local government county structure.
45Dossier thématique : Innovation sociale et développement des territoires dans les campagnes européennes
Bibliography ment/local development alignment steering group, Dublin,
DECLG, 58 p.
ACACC (Arigna Catchment Area Community Company Ltd.). DECLG (Department of Environment, Community and Local
1997. Arigna LEADER report and accounts 1996-1997, Ari- Government), 2012b. Putting people first: action programme
gna, ACACC. for effective local government, Dublin, DECLG, 198 p.
Benington J., Geddes M., 2001. Social exclusion, partner- DECLG (Department of Environment, Community and Rural
ship and local governance – new problems, new policy dis- Government), 2014. Guidelines for the establishment and
courses in the European Union, in Geddes M., Bening- operation of Local Community Development Committees,
ton M. (dir.), Local partnerships and social exclusion in the Dublin, DECLG, 43 p.
European Union, London, Routledge, p. 1-14. DHPCLG (Department of Housing, Planning, Community
Brenner N., Jessop B., Jones M., McLeod G., 2003. Intro- and Local Government), 2016a. Local government reform,
duction: state space in question, in Brenner N., Jessop B., [http://www.housing.gov.ie/local-government/reform/local-
Jones M., MacLeod G. (dir.), State/space: a reader, Oxford, government-reform], downloaded 21 September 2016.
Blackwell, p. 1-26. DHPCLG (Department of Housing, Planning, Community and
Callanan M., 2003. Local government and the European Local Government), 2016b, Local Community Develop-
Union, in Callanan M., Keogan M.F. (dir.), Local govern- ment Committees. [http://www.housing.gov.ie/community/
ment in Ireland: inside out, Dublin, Institute of Public Admi- alignment/alignment-local-government-local-development],
nistration, p. 404-428.
downloaded 21 September 2016
Callanan M., 2005. Institutionalizing participation and gover-
Dollery B., Robotti L. (dir.), 2008. The theory and practice
nance? New participative structures in local government
of local government reform, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar
in Ireland, Public Administration, vol. 83, no 4, p. 909-929.
Publishers, 315 p.
Cawley M., 2007. Rural development in Ireland: a local gover-
Fitzpatrick Associates, 2005. Mid-term evaluation of LEA-
nance perspective, in Hodgett S., Johnson D., Royle S.
DER+, Phase 2 Report, Dublin, Fitzpatrick Associates, 50 p.
(dir.), Doing development differently: regional development
+ Appendices, 10 p.
on the Atlantic periphery, Sydney, Nova Scotia, Cape Breton
Forde C., 2005. Participatory democracy or pseudo-participa-
University Press, p. 246-266.
tion? Local government reform in Ireland, Local Govern-
Cawley, M., 2009. Local governance and sustainable rural deve-
ment Studies, vol. 31, no 2, p. 137-148.
lopment: Ireland’s experience in an EU context, Revija za
Geddes M., 2006. Partnership and the limits to local gover-
Geografijo, vol. 7, no 1, p. 53-64.
nance in England: institutionalist analysis and neolibera-
CEC (Commission of the European Communities), 2006. The
lism, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research,
LEADER approach: a basic guide, Brussels, CEC, 23 p.
CAG (Comptroller and Auditor General), 1999. Report on value vol. 30, no 1, p. 76-97.
for money examination, local development initiatives, Dublin, Geddes M., Benington M. (dir.), 2001. Local partnerships and
Government Publications, 20 p. social exclusion in the European Union: new forms of local
CLP (County Leitrim Partnership), 1996. Area action plan social governance, London, Routledge, 254 p.
1996-1999, Drumshanbo, CLP, 29 p. Goodwin M., 1998. The governance of rural areas: some emer-
Dax T., Strahl W., Kirwan J., Maye D., 2013. The LEADER ging research issues and agendas, Journal of Rural Studies,
programme 2007-2013: enabling or disabling social inno- vol. 14, no 1, p. 5-12.
vation and neo-endogenous development? Insights from Government of Ireland, 1998. Task force on the integration
Austria and Ireland, European Urban and Regional Studies, of local government and local development systems, Report,
early view. Dublin, Government Publications, 18 p.
[http://eur.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/07/25/09697764134 Government of Ireland, 1999. White paper on rural develop-
90425], accessed 18 March 2014. ment, Dublin, Government Publications, 56 p.
Dean M., 2010. Governmentality: power and rule in modern Government of Ireland, 2002. National spatial strategy 2002-
society, London, Sage, 2nd ed., 294 p. 2020: people, places and potential, Dublin, Government
Department of Agriculture, 2007. Ireland, CAP rural deve- Publications, 152 p.
lopment programme 2007-2013, Dublin, Department of Government of Ireland, 2014. Local Government Reform
Agriculture, 501 p. Act, No. 1 of 2014. [http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/pdf/2014/
DAFM (Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine), en.act.2014.0001.pdf], accessed 30 September 2014.
2016. 2016 Summary of Rural Development Programme, Hajer M., 2003. Policy without polity? Policy analysis and the
Ireland, 2014-2020, Dublin, DAFM, 54 p. institutional void, Policy Sciences, vol. 36, no 2, p. 175-195.
DCRGA (Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Harvey D., 2005. Neoliberalism: a short history, Oxford, Oxford
Affairs), 2007. Guidelines on the governance of integrated University Press, 247 p.
local development companies and urban based partner- Healey P., 2003. Institutionalist theory, social exclusion and
ships, Dublin, DCRGA, 63 p. governance, in Madanipour A., Cars G., Allen J. (dir.),
DECLG (Department of Environment, Community and Local Social exclusion in European cities, London, Jessica Kings-
Government), 2012a. Final report of the local govern- ley, p. 53-73.
46You can also read
